Quick Reply to Council Member Ferre's Reply to Recall

Answer and Detail to Recall Cause and Reply: Point by Point

It is our belief that you have failed to fulfill the responsibilities of your office by being fiscally irresponsible and disregarding the lives and safety of our citizens.


It is our perception that you have conspired to allocate redevelopment monies to benefit private interests.

Schwab House (Orriginal Purchase RDA Funds), (Sold to City), (Provided/Sold to Schwab), not disclosed to public at the time of sale, negotiation. NOT DONE with proper notice, or record at the time of the event. (Brought out to the light of day by a CITIZEN and State AUDITOR's REPORT).
Loan to City Employee
Carlstrom Land Deals/Relationship
Jacobsen/Town Center
CBH
NO BID CONTRACTS in violation of California State Regulations and Laws
Land Purchases and Sales in Closed Session and not done in accordance to regulations and laws regulating such transactions.

You have, we believe, violated California law by holding secret meetings and making illegal decisions.

ONLY AFTER MONTHS of Public Comment at Council Meeting and Complaint by Citizens did the Council and Council to Council attempt to inform the Public of the nature of the "Closed Meetings" and report back after the "Closed Meeting" the decisions made.

IN addition, it is apparent that the Sheriff is not releasing the Call Log at the request or direction of the City Council.

IN addition, it is clear that the City Council at the Direction of the City Attorney who serves at the Pleasure of the City Manager, Tom Schwab, has taken the tack of using the word "May" to mean "MUST" when determining when a "Closed Meeting" shall be used to hold the public out of many meetings which to not in fact REQUIRE that they are held in "Closed Session".


It is our belief that you made decisions and conspired in matters affecting public finance, public health and safety, in private, in secret communications, and through third party contacts.

It is clear through the statements recorded in the minutes of the council meetings that matters are discussed outside of the Council Chambers.

Public Speakers in agreement with the Staff Position, will often say when "WE" talked and this and that were decided. Worse is when the Council Members themselves say, "We had a discussion and agreed that".. and so forth. Of course who is the WE? Well in some cases it is apparent it is a discussion with the Developer, Council Member and City Manager.

We believe that your conduct exposes the City to litigation, including the Brown Act, and liability, the public to harm, and compromises City finances.

Three Cases resulting from Council Approval of commissionanning Commision, and Planning Department Approvals on the Recommendation of Staff.

One Case in Litigation for the damage of Private Property as a result of city's action.


NO DOUBT IF Better Governance and Management is not required by the City Council, the current methods of miss management will continue to put the city in the path of litigation.



The answer of the officer sought to be recalled is as follows:


All of the allegations are baseless.

This reply is an attempt to simply dismiss the issues raised as being insignificant, and the proponents undeserving of a hearing or their rights to take civic action.

It is my view that this group's attacks on every issue are designed to hide the fact that they have no constructive ideas of their own.

Concerns and Comments are as we know all "Duly Noted" when presented to the Council and as she has no recollection of constructive ideas it is fitting she be recalled. Concerns that have been raised and ignored by the council as a body and in particular this council members instance on limiting the consolation at Council Meetings include:

Failure of the Planning Commission to hold consistently Professional Public Meetings and Practices in evaluation of all Plans placed before it.

Failure of the City Manager to Manage the City's required state reporting and filing of reports. Including but not limited to the Lack of Current General Plan.

Failure of the City's Planning Department to require sufficient EIR documents and studies for City RDA/ City Manager's Pet Projects.

Failure to properly supervise the actions of the City Manager, including the use of threats and intimidations against private property owners.

Failure to hold City Manager accountable for misrepresentations to the Council and Public by his termination.

The above are constructive IDEAS and they address the Real Important Issues of Grand Terrace. These issues were not brought to the Public by Council Members.

In my opinion, the "private interests" these people are against are the businesses this City needs and a new library our community deserves.

The "Private Interest" of these people is to "Improve the Governance of Grand Terrace" for the Benefit of All Citizens not just developers and realtors, and friends of the Council and Chamber of Commerce.

The "New Library" was never fully planned, budgeted, nor thought out as to the real possibility as it relates to the funding provided by the Development Linked to this rational.

This demonstrates the flawed logic, and miss use of the Council Members position. "The Businesses this City Needs" according to Council Member Ferre include Big Box Lowes, with Day Laborers, and Mega Staters, and more Drug/Liquor Stores. NEVER has there been a report as to the increased costs these business will bring to the community, nor has there been sufficient EIR studies.

Council Member Ferre should secure the funds, and plans before she suggests this or that development will provide funds for a library. Fiction, belongs in a Library not in City Council Plans, or actions.

There have been no secret meetings or illegal decisions.

Comments including, "We discussed" and "We feel", and "We decided", or "I was told". Suggest differently. Actions taken suggest otherwise.

In my view, these people are simply upset that I have refused to let them monopolize discussions at Council meetings.

If we have no ideas, there is no reason to have a discussion... this is flawed logic an attack on individual cittizens not the issues raised by the recall. This is a diversionary tactic.

I believe that if they could, they would control all debate before, during and after anyone spoke on any issue they were against.

This belief is disputed by history. Council Member Hilkey often states before the 3 minute rule, and limits put on public consultation and discussion, the citizens and council were able to fully discuss issues and come to better conclusions and made better informed decisions.

More time is spent on "Special Presentations" than on important Issues being discussed. Time taken for photos with Jack Brown take longer than a citizen is allowed to speak.

Citizens at the Podium are not the one that made up a law that does not exist to keep Council members from interacting or answering questions from the public.

Last month Council members Miller and Hilkey told her once again and the community this is a fabrication by Ferre to stifle anyone from asking or answering questions at meetings and she still persist in this violation of Calif. law and denying the citizens their rights.

She feels she is above the law. So demonstrated by her misleading statements after closed sessions on real estate deals that no deal was done when Councilman Hilkey has said in open meeting that there was a deal made and Ferre lied.

As a former Terrace View principal, I would lever harm the lives and safety of our citizens and their children.

This is like saying as a former Catholic Priest, there should be no question as to an individuals decisions, or capacity or conduct.

This "As a Former Terrace View Principal", shows the level of arrogance and elitism Council Member Marretta Ferre holds in her attitude to the Peons who bring forth their legitimate concerns and ideas to the Council at City Council Meetings.

A Principal at a school should be autocratic to the students as the function is that of a surrogate parent to the students. HOWEVER, this management style with dealing with adults be it as a Principal or a City Council Member is inappropriate.

This attitude is not the only cause of the recall, it just adds the the evidence that errors made in the past are either deliberate, or at least should be expected to persist and repeat, therefor Council Member Ferry should be removed from the City Council.

It is my opinion that since I have been unwilling to place the interests of this one group above the interests of the community as a whole, they are now resorting to intimidation tactics. I respectfully request that you decline to sign this petition.

Citizens must look at the interests that have been served by the small group Council Member Ferre attempts to degrade in her reply. First, there is not a "small group". Council Member Ferre attempts to degrade or devalue the citizens contribution to the governance of the city by making the suggestion that all opposition comes from a "Small Group" of the same people who are always against the actions of the city. This is a false statement. This Recall effort has brought to gether individuals who have attempted to address the city's issues, attempted to provide the city with varietytive ideas, and suggestions on a varriety of issues.

The community as a whole would have been better off if there were no opposition to a BIG BOX DEVELOPMENT of LOWES and Mega Staters, More Drug/Liquor Stores and a Giant Lowes benefits who?

The use of Eminent Domain to Force the transfer of Private Property to a Private Party, remains an issue.

The community as a whole would have been better off breathing cement dust from Manhole builders?

The community as a whole would have been better off with a Senior Center built without proper EIR studies?

The community as a whole would be better off without the disclosure and open discussion of the problems behind the Outdoor Adventure Center.

The community as a whole is in great shape being in Debt to the tune of 17 million in tax deferred bonds, 20% of which has to be by law spent on LOW INCOME HOUSING, not just Senior Housing.

The community as a whole is in better shape providing housing for VERY LOW INCOME seniors next to an Elementary School and adjacent to R1 housing, AND the SENIORS to be housed there are in a CITY with no PUBLIC transportation will be distant from the Shopping District.

Will the community as a whole be better if there is no limits on the future highschool's total population, number of parking spaces, water use, and other matters the CITY acutally has the right to have input on?

The community is in great shape when the General Plan is violated by RDA Plans, including the location of the Senior Housing Proposed.

They are now resorting to intimidation tactics.

Let us know what "intimidated you". Perhaps it was the public statement, run again, face a recall again, is a statement of commitment not intimidation. Sell your land or the city will use Eminent Domain to force you to sell, that is intimidation. Warning of problems in proceedures lead to law suit is not intimidation it is a desire to have things done right. Warning of social negitives of Big Box Stores, is that intimidation? Warning of being held accountable, is that intimidation?

Recall supporters feel Grand Terrace needs not to continue the type of Governance you clearly support. Grand Terrace needs to protect itself from your actions.